How would you define 'sustainable'? Our shareholders demand sustainability, but they mean the consistent creation of economic value through time. Activists demand sustainability from us, but they expect a value chain that neither destroys natural ecosystems nor consumes resources.

One stakeholder demands that we create sustainable profit by building products for consumers to consume. Another insists that consumerism inherently drives environmental destruction – the antithesis of sustainability. So—what's the poor CEO to do?

I regularly hear arguments from activists that it is consumerism, instigated by brand builders like me, that sits at the heart of our social corruption. They argue that we have abandoned the idyll of pre-industrial living, when honest craftsmen built products of high utility, using local, natural materials, and moved to a place where we are condemned to rapaciously consume the natural resources of our planet in the shallow, temporal pursuit of profit.

Baloney.

I reject the romanticism of a 'better time'; I am a pragmatic believer in the generative, creative private sector, which serves up relevant and even vital innovations that are important elements of our modern day lives. But neither am I an apologist for the failures that attend outdated industrial thinking. I refuse to accept for an instant that we are condemned to drain our world of its limited and fragile natural resources. Rather, I believe that a CEO can—and in my view, must —re-imagine the for-profit business agenda around the goal of sustainability.

I am an advocate for moral capitalism, for responsible consumerism. Moral capitalism embraces the dialectic of increasing profits and decreasing environmental destruction. Responsible consumerism requires that the CEO re-imagine the goods and services we offer, and the means by which we design and manufacture and deliver those goods and services. And that we find the means to make our re-imagined goods and services compelling and desirable to consumers—deliver value and values.

Look at the emerging evidence that moral capitalism is a real possibility—look at the real, concrete improvements in large scale, big business environmental practice and outcome that are being reported every day. There are packaging reductions at WalMart, energy use reductions at UPS, thoughtful water management at Starbucks. These companies are lowering costs (improving profits) and reducing environmental impacts. This is the stuff of reality, not fairy tale, and the pace is accelerating across industry—exactly because the private sector is the right framework to spur sustainable innovation.

At Timberland we can make outdoors products in factories that neither despoil the water supply or air, nor exploit the workforce, and which can be delivered thoughtfully, built to last, and at the end of their lives disassembled and upcycled.

Imagine the refocusing of brand building in fashion against the belief that less is more—that by generating fewer but better products, we can grow our profits and operate in the environment sustainably. Imagine that by choosing materials, constructions, transportation networks, retail environments differently—through the screen of economic and environmental sustainability—the CEO can create a sustainable value chain. But note that I wrote 'sustainable', not perfect....

Imagine designing products to maximise desirability and minimise environmental footprint. There are real examples: Patagonia's Common Threads programme extends the life of some garments by at least one generation, reducing the consumption of resources and providing a second sale (and extra profit) for the brand. Imperfect, yes—all recycling, even upcycling, has environmental and economic costs — but innovation drives consumer passion, higher profits, less ecosystem damage. Our Earthkeepers footwear product—designed from the beginning for ultimate disassembly and upcycling once the initial consumer utility is exhausted—is another example.

I know that the vast majority of what the fashion industry makes, markets and hopes to sell is not conceived of through the lens of moral capitalism or responsible consumerism — yet. But not so long ago, folks used to say "the letter is in the mail," and that was the standard until Federal Express innovated "absolutely positively overnight," and until the internet came along. The generative, creative, private sector changed the possible.